Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Scribble Date: Aug 28, 2008 9:48am
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: Is telecining the videos still the best way?

That's a pretty good point, I usually end up removing the pulldown frames in order to apply motion effects anyway.

The problem could be the device used to capture the film, unless it's a flying spot scanner it probably introduces pulldown as a consequence of its mechanical nature.

Making the files 24/23.976 would save space on the server as well...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: FP Date: Aug 29, 2008 3:20pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: Is telecining the videos still the best way?

Another vote for 24P files.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Rick Prelinger Date: Aug 31, 2008 1:39pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: Is telecining the videos still the best way?

Well, one reason I transfer film at 30 fps is that I still transfer chiefly for standard-def broadcast use. That's what pays our way.

The other reason I haven't gotten into 24p transfers is that I'd have to go to other facilities, whose services are considerably more expensive than our current process. If you correct for all the factors, we're talking at least three times more expensive.

I'd really like to make the absolute highest-quality versions of our films available online (short of 2k or 4k, I guess that would be 1080/24p), but in order for this to happen, someone would have to cover our transfer costs, which would be astronomical, and we'd have to figure out how to make up for the lost income when producers no longer had to pay Getty Images for the best quality.

In case anyone cares, I've been waffling on making HD transfers of our material for a number of reasons:

1. Very expensive
2. No single best way to transfer 4:3 film to HD without cropping (which I object to) or letterboxing (which many others object to).
3. Just about impossible to find an HD telecine facility with liquid-gate, a working film cleaner, optical sound heads for 35mm and 16mm, and the ability to handle archival film and its peculiarities. The HD telecine workflow is optimized for newly shot film and HD transfers of archival material are artisanal and very, very costly.

We are very happy with the SD work that Churchman Television does for us.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Scribble Date: Sep 1, 2008 5:52pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: Is telecining the videos still the best way?

Rick,

I always "pillar" box the 4:3 materials so I can use them in 16:9 productions, this ensures full frame and minimal resizing, you can see this in use on the fine film "In the Shadow of the Moon", which pillar-boxed their NASA archival footage to maintain the integrity of the compositions.

Best Regards...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Rick Prelinger Date: Sep 1, 2008 5:56pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: Is telecining the videos still the best way?

Yes, this probably presents 4:3 material with the greatest integrity, but our stock footage clients working in HD don't like it that way -- they want full-frame even if it results in loss of some of the image. I am therefore deciding not to decide at present.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: FP Date: Sep 1, 2008 1:18pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: Is telecining the videos still the best way?

All good reasons, and it's very considerate of you to take the time to offer them along with these free films. At this price, I'll gladly accept what I can get. Liquid gate transfers are a tasty bonus.

For anyone interested:
Both AE and Magic Bullet for Vegas do an adequate job of restoring telecine'd films to 24P. High-quality frame sequences or uncompressed files can then be output for manipulation at reasonably high quality.